The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Hike Then Freeze

Text Size

Alex Conant makes a valid point about the Obama administration's proposed 2011-13 spending "freeze." Under the existing Obama budget, it was already assumed that spending would surge as a result of efforts to prop up the economy during the recession, and then begin to decline during the 2011 to 2013 period before starting to tick up again.

According to a chart in the Office of Management and Budget's mid-session review released last August (page 28), discretionary non-defense spending was on pace to explode from $508 billion in 2008 to $681 billion in 2010. Starting in 2011, according to OMB estimates, that number would begin to taper off, dropping to $639 billion in 2011; $607 billion in 2012; and bottoming out at $595 billion in 2013. We'll have to wait until next week for more details, but based on what we know now, if Obama's "freezes" spending at 2011 levels, it may actually represent an increase over what spending aticipated by his earlier budget.

View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

Interested Conservative| 1.26.10 @ 2:25PM

Mr. Klein, I'm afraid it's even worse than what all that data reveals.

I've been wondering how to add in the huge slush fund built up with unused TARP/bailout/stimulus/GM-Chrysler-AIG stock-warrants/etc. they have to play with. On top of that, I don't doubt that when ObamaCare is finally avoided, they'll take the projected costs of that and count them as "savings" to be sent to the "freezer".

There are not enough forensic accountants to examine this proposed corpse.

Liberal Reader| 1.26.10 @ 5:28PM

Interested --

It seems like you're confusing a few things here. GM is on track to pay back its bailout money; the banks are returning their's with interest, and it seems likely the American taxpayer will MAKE money in the end. Plus the economy was prevented from collapsing, which has some value.

Liberal Reader| 1.26.10 @ 3:22PM

Obama's proposed "freeze" is an absolutely horrible idea.

To freeze federal spending -- or increase taxes - in the middle of such a deep recession would be crazy.

Talks inside the administration to impliment an immediate payroll tax cut -- which Republicans would have to support -- could have a positive impact on employment. Like maintaining current spending, the tax cut would increase the deficit, but that deficit is very much worth the cost.

Continued unemployment at current levels will exact costs upon our society much, much greater than the costs of maintaining the deficits we're currently seeing -- deficits that are, by the way, much smaller as a percentage of GDP than we had during the decades following WWII.

Of course we need to reign in deficits; we need, however, first to get out of this recession.

Until the "animal spirits" of which Adam Smith wrote begin to circulate again, federal spending is crucial to increasing the prospects of economic growth. Alan Greenspan, the ephebe of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, agrees with this, as do countless conservative economists.

Oldefarte| 1.26.10 @ 4:03PM

Of course it would, since COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCES [COLAS] would be involved. The governmental expenses need to be substantially reduced/eliminated, period!!!!